"Just got off the phone with Google over their Android app store (Market or Google Play to those keeping track of the name changes) about an application that I purchased that can no longer be found. Evidentially their new policy in the Market can be summed up as a head shrug and the words 'I got mine'. They have decided their fifteen minute refund window is not only absolute, but also applies even in cases where the developers are actively screwing over their customers." Yes, it's an angry rant, and yes, if that bother you, you can skip it, but the guy or girl has a point. Google has some major work to do on the Play Store.

While I sympathize with the author, this is nothing different than buying closed source software package in any store down the street.

The store could not be blamed for something that was obviously under the responsibility of the company developing the product.

This really sums it up. Buying closed-source software is no different then buying a product from some big-box retailer or department store. You're trusting that the manufacturer builds their stuff well, provides good support, etc. If they burn you, how much of that is really the store's fault? After all, their job is to supply what is demanded by customers... and you bought it, didn't you? Sure, a good store can carefully review the manufacturers and products they plan to sell, but it's not really their function.

It's up to the consumer to determine and decide their own risk/reward. Sucks, but that's how it is. If you want to buy product from a company that has a non-existent or suspect track record, could be bought/closed down at any time, and won't provide the means to make yourself self-sufficient when they go belly up, that's your prerogative.

I realize not all of us particularly like Richard Stallman or fully agree with everything he says, but this sort of thing is exactly what he's talking about when he talks about the unethical nature of closed-source software.

"It's up to the consumer to determine and decide their own risk/reward. Sucks, but that's how it is. If you want to buy product from a company that has a non-existent or suspect track record, could be bought/closed down at any time, and won't provide the means to make yourself self-sufficient when they go belly up, that's your prerogative."

Only to a point, but customers are entitled to returns for products that are broken or don't work as advertised. It's the stores responsibility to take it back within a reasonable period of time. May favorite computer parts store has a 30day return policy, which I've made use of at times for unsuitable products. Now they obviously don't like returns, but it encourages stores and manufacturers to improve reliability and advertise honestly, which is a good thing. It also helps customers gain confidence in buying products that look promising but are created by less recognized brands - ideally reducing the market stranglehold by large brands.

I'm all for "buyer be ware", but only on the condition I've had a chance to inspect the product ahead of time. We often lack the chance to do that these days so it's good to have rules for returns.

"While I sympathize with the author, this is nothing different than buying closed source software package in any store down the street."

Actually I find the scenarios to be totally different because we're typically buying offline installation media in addition to a software license. So we can typically reinstall store bought software even if the store and publisher go out of business. So while it sucks that the software may no longer be supported, the customer is still able to keep the software he bought(*).

Here it sounds like the publisher updated the software to disable it, converting the paid for software into vanishware.

* Morgan already highlighted how product activation schemes remove our ability to exorcise these rights. And as far as I'm concerned legitimate customers are entitled to use keygens/cracks to continue using the software they purchased.